Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-26-2015, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 34,991,295 times
Reputation: 7875

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians View Post
If the GOP can win Virginia, Ohio, and Florida then that changes things.
The Democrats could lose all three of those states and still win the election, and of course all the Democrats need to do is win just one of those states and the election is over, while Republicans need to win all three plus some.

 
Old 04-26-2015, 08:19 AM
 
1,020 posts, read 1,370,847 times
Reputation: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky4life View Post
Pretty much this^

As a centrist that doesn't even vote, I don't really have a dog in this fight; however, I can say without any hesitation that a Dem will win in 2016 unless the Republicans find an amazing candidate that has yet to surface. Even with low turnout and a crappy Dem candidate, The best the Republican party can hope for is winning the popular vote, which I won't be surprised if they do. There just isn't any realistic way to 270 for the Republican party at this point in time.
Unless they increase their voter suppression efforts significantly & have another Diebold in their back pocket to "fix" the voting machines. That is really their only hope.
 
Old 04-26-2015, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
8,802 posts, read 8,860,638 times
Reputation: 4512
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
The Democrats could lose all three of those states and still win the election, and of course all the Democrats need to do is win just one of those states and the election is over, while Republicans need to win all three plus some.
Winning just one of those states doesn't get to 270 electoral votes
 
Old 04-26-2015, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,477,869 times
Reputation: 9675
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
[/i]As far as Hillary is concerned, are you suggesting that no one should be concerned about her lying, her duplicity, the corruption, blatant violations of law (using personal email for official State Department business is just the most recent revelation), and her incompetence which resulted in the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi? Those things should be of no concern?

It isn't "anger" pouring out. It's disgust. How can she be trusted? The simple answer is, she can't be.

I think Americans are tired of the "dynasty of Clinton and Bush." We're looking for real leadership, on the order of Ronald Reagan.
But former Sen. Coburn thinks she would make a good president, due to her experience.
 
Old 04-26-2015, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,453 posts, read 33,125,280 times
Reputation: 7593
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The only time the republicans have won a Presidential election, the candidate projected themselves as a physical conservative. Bush had a record of it in Texas, as Governor and was a 2 termer. Reagan had that and showed it as Governor of California and he was a 2 termer.

Put another Dole, McCain, Romney in there and try to sell them as Conservative, is not going to work.
Conservative voters are not as ignorant as Progressive voters. They don't play team sports and won't vote just to vote, when there is marginal differences in the democrat and the Republican running.
A what type of conservative?
 
Old 04-26-2015, 10:33 PM
 
11,989 posts, read 5,233,841 times
Reputation: 7284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
A what type of conservative?
Maybe a physical conservative is one who stays in bed to conserve energy. Not sure.
.
 
Old 04-26-2015, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
38,953 posts, read 50,866,357 times
Reputation: 28134
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoks View Post
In both cases you cite, the candidates threw away their chances by not staying true to themselves and their previous positions in order to pander to the far right conservatives that control the GOP. McCain also chose Palin as his running mate, a fatal error. If he had not attempted to move so far to the right and chose someone like Lieberman to be VP he might have won.

Romney was a serial flip flopper and his move to the right was such a blatant case of pandering that he upset people on both sides. Conservatives didn't believe he was truly conservative and moderates lost all faith that he wouldn't be wholly owned by the religious right if he won the election.

If the GOP ever runs a true centrist that does not pander to the lunatic fringe that wants a theocracy, they would have a great chance of winning. As long as every Republican has to appease the American Taliban in the primaries, they cannot win the general election.
So far, Bush seems to be doing that. He has stuck to his principles with respect to immigration, for example. We'll see as we head down the Republican Road.
 
Old 04-26-2015, 11:53 PM
 
33,746 posts, read 16,732,718 times
Reputation: 17039
urbanlife78
"The Democrats could lose all three of those states and still win the election, and of course all the Democrats need to do is win just one of those states and the election is over, while Republicans need to win all three plus some."

Correct. Va, Ohio, or Florida plus the Blue Wall pretty much seals the deal for the Democrats. The GOP cannot guarantee 270 winning all 3, but it gives them some chance. The critical term there, though, is ALL 3. Not 1, not 2.
 
Old 04-27-2015, 12:26 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 34,991,295 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
Winning just one of those states doesn't get to 270 electoral votes
But all the safe states the Democrats have and a couple easy ones for them to win does get them to 270.
 
Old 04-27-2015, 01:04 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,692,433 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
The Democrats could lose all three of those states and still win the election, and of course all the Democrats need to do is win just one of those states and the election is over, while Republicans need to win all three plus some.

which other states? Repubs are winning Iowa, Wisconsin. They even won the governors seat in Md. The problem with Hillary is that (obviously) conservatives don't like her. So she now has to appeal to women voters. Well, have you noticed that the GOP has been electing women candidates lately? If Obama beat Hillary in 2008, and Obama himself is polling low, then Hillary will be popular??? The hurdles seem high for Hillary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top